The TOC Buffers

11 November 2017, Oded Cohen  

Last Thursday (9th November, 2017), I gave a presentation in the 35th TOPA Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania on TOC Buffers.

Discussions that followed the presentation have brought me to realize that there is some misunderstanding of the TOC Buffers.

The word/term Buffer is commonly used today as reserve, on top of, etc. – generally to indicate a mechanism for protection for the unknown, mishaps and unexpected.

Some TOC practitioners have the perception that Buffers in TOC are there just to absorb variability. This is partially true but it is not the full picture, and this does not explain the difference between the meaning of the ‘TOC buffers’ and the conventional ‘buffers’.

The TOCICO dictionary states that: buffer – Protection against uncertainty. The protection is aggregated and may take the form of time, stock (inventory), capacity, space or money.  Buffers are strategically located to protect the system from disruption.”

Actually, the above definition is true for any protection mechanism that was inserted into major conventional managerial systems as early as the 1950s and onward.

Read more

Opinion and knowledge

15 October 2017, Oded Cohen and Jelena Fedurko-Cohen 

TOC is a knowledge based approach, not an opinion based one.

The difference between the knowledge and an opinion is that

  • the knowledge constitutes the established and tested sets of cause and effect connections that have hard proofs that appear in different sets of conditions, environments and realities so consistently and so many times that it excludes a possibility that effects appear there by chance,
  • while an opinion is an expression of a belief or conviction of an individual. That’s true that this individual may have evidence in their reality of the existence of whatever their opinion expresses. They often use this evidence as an argument to say that their opinion is CORRECT.

However, they overlook that this evidence is NOT the proof of the CORRECTNESS of their opinion, but the DEMONSTRATION of HOW THE OPINION ITSELF WAS FORMED.

Read more

God bless CEOs for resisting what consultants would love them to do

07 October 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen 

This post reflects my thinking about the recent discussion on Linkedin and TOC Practitioners Worldwide about a suggested new type of constraint – “Human constraint”.  The new term was suggested by Angela Montgomery who published a post on TOC Learning and TOC4U titled: ‘The Human Constraint – What Is It?’

Angela wrote: “Ultimately, the human constraint, what prevents us from moving forward, is our ability to challenge and transform our thinking. We believe there is a structured, systemic and systematic way ahead”.

I will leave aside the convenience of calling what one thinks they have a solution to as a “constraint”.

I was wondering: HOW – what is the SPECIFIC MECHANISM – of DETECTING that AN INDIVIDUAL ABILITY to challenge and transform one’s thinking is the CONSTRAINT of that person?

Who can judge that? Based on what?

When we say that the company has a CAPACITY constraint for these and these products and a MARKET constraint for other products – there is a CLEAR mechanism to detect that.

To understand whether the system has a Capacity constraint or a Market constraint we compare the existing capacity and the amount of orders to fill in this capacity within a bucket of time. If the demand on capacity exceeds the existent capacity (not averaged, but real, per product) – we conclude that the system has the capacity constraint for those products. If the capacity exceeds the amount of orders – we conclude that the system has the market constraint for those products. The same system can alternate between capacity and market constraint for the same products depending on seasonality, etc.

Please note that the CONCLUSION of where the constraint is – in Capacity or in the Market – is made (and is MEANT to be made) by THE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM, NOT by an external consultant.

Let’s return to the suggested ‘Human Constraint’ – the ABILITY to challenge and transform one’s thinking.

What is going to be compared with what to make the CONCLUSION that MY CONSTRAINT is MY ABILITY TO CHALLENGE AND TRANSFORM MY THINKING?

Who will be making this conclusion? A consultant? HOW DOES A CONSULTANT KNOW THAT MY ABILITY TO CHALLENGE MY THINKING CONSTRAINTS ME? Constraints me as compared to what? To the CONSULTANT’S DESIRE OF WHAT I MUST THINK AND DO?

If MY constraint is MY ABILITY to challenge MY THINKING – then by definition I CANNOT THINK THAT I NEED TO CHANGE MY THINKING. So – I cannot come to the conclusion that it is MY CONSTRAINT. Then it is someone EXTERNAL who will announce that THIS is my constraint. And this someone will tell me how to exploit that little that I have. And will tell me how I must subordinate EVERYTHING ELSE TO WHAT THE CONSULTANT SAYS. Interesting…

If the CEOs or other decision makers in THEIR SYSTEMS reject what the consultants tell them to do – the CEOs are RIGHT!!

It is THEIR systems, it is to THEM – and NOT to the consultants! – that the owners of the systems gave the right, the authority and the RESPONSIBILITY to manage the systems on the owners’ behalf!

The CEOs resist ONLY when what the consultant offers is NOT PROFESSIONAL ENOUGH for THIS SYSTEM.

If the CEO does NOT AGREE to the problem, or direction of the solution, of the benefits, or that the negative outcomes will not appear, or that the solution is doable – the CEO IS RIGHT!

This only means that what the consultant offers DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN JUSTIFIABLY TRUSTED TO MANAGE THE SYSTEM!

This is NOT the system of a consultant. By resisting, the CEOs PROTECT THEIR SYSTEMS FROM BEING DAMAGED.

And we did see the cases when consultants badly damage the systems.

And the last comment – quite often TOC consultants use Clouds to demonstrate to the stubborn CEOs how right the consultants are and how constrained in thinking the CEOs are. There is no wonder that the CEOs are not impressed – in most cases the logical connections demonstrated in such clouds do not stand a routine logical check.

Published by Jelena Fedurko-Cohen, 07 October 2017

When we meet “Resistance” – is it really resistance and is it connected at all to Layers of Resistance?

21 September 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen 

In my experience, in TOC community, the phrase “Layers of resistance” is used quite often in situations when a person just encounters a disagreement in the process of communication or absence of the desired behaviour.  And quite often, after this phrase is used, people start referring to the TP tools that are used to deal with every specific Layer of Resistance.

Here are the common mistakes:

1. Confusion of Entity Existence Category of Legitimate Reservations with resistance and conflict

Read more

There is no ‘stupid rule’

01 September 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen 

The role and objective of a rule – any rule – is to restrict. A RULE prescribes the RIGHT way – in order to restrict one from taking wrong ways.

Restricting comes only from the need to prevent a potential negative outcome of doing things ANY OTHER way than the way prescribed from the rule. Please note that in this case the negative outcome is KNOWN. An effort to prevent a known negative outcome cannot possible be stupid, and cannot be looked at as ‘stupid’. From the point of view of preventing a known negative outcome, a rule is smart and responsible.

Read more

Does TOC have the tools and mindset to understand the benefits to the customer?

07 August 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen 

In a recent discussion in TOC Practitioners Worldwide FB group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1014476831927643/ Richard Zultner made a statement: ”In ToC we do a great job of understanding the benefit of our production, distribution, and retail solutions to the BUSINESS (theirs and ours). But what we must also do for certain project types (e.g., new product development), is to understand the benefits to the CUSTOMER. And ToC is weak at this, because we have no tools, and the wrong mindset.”

I was surprised to learn that there is such perception at all. This statement made me realize that there must be quite a gap in the knowledge and/or interpretation of TOC concepts, tools and techniques among the TOC community. And probably not only in this area.

My response to Richard’s statement was “This is simply not correct.”

Let’s take the claim that TOC has ‘the wrong mindset’ in regard to understanding the benefits to the CUSTOMER (as opposed to the BUSINESS – theirs and ours). Let’s assume that by “CUSTOMER” Richard meant not a company that is a customer for the TOC solution (because otherwise it would be a BUSINESS), but the final customer, the one that uses the product (any type of product).

TOC has a very strong mindset about creating for a BUSINESS a DCE – Decisive Competitive Edge. A Competitive Edge can be created ONLY by keeping the benefits to the CUSTOMER as the central element, the focus and the main drive of the solution. The benefit to OUR business (as the product provider) comes ONLY AS THE BY-PRODUCT of recognizing and finding how to create the benefits to our CUSTOMER.

Read more

The future of CCPM – What exactly do we mean when we say “The constraint is in the market”?

20 July 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen

Here are my thoughts after the recent late evening discussion, during the Berlin TOCICO Conference, regarding the future of CCPM.

The summary of the meeting was recorded by Oded and presented in our Facebook group TOC Practitioners Worldwide:

Twenty seven members joined the meeting. The title for the session was – The future of CCPM, as this was assumed from the discussion in our Facebook group that there is further interest in discussing and better understanding where is CCPM heading towards. 
Talking about the future implies that something is wrong with the current situation or there is a treat that must be addressed. 
However, at the meeting it became apparent that the majority of the members do not think that there is something wrong with the existing knowledge and product. Even though at is current offering is may not be enough for all the environments that members operate in and as such they need some further specific development.
The majority of the concerns expressed were regarding how to sell it? What value to offer? How to handle Agile? What to do with the diminishing perceived value that a project manager is bringing to their organizations?

Read more

Building culture in a new organization vs ‘mending’ culture in an existing organization

13 June 2017, Jelena Fedurko-Cohen

I want to share some discussions that we had during Tribute to Eli, two days ago, 11 June 2017, when people from many countries came to the Goldratt House in Bene Atarot, in the suburb of Tel Aviv, to share memories and celebrate legacy of the man that has touched so many lives. It was a great day, with the atmosphere full of warmth and light. Tribute speeches and discussions were dedicated to Eli, his impact, his legacy. As it happens when people know each other for many years and share professional interests and passion, the day was very intense with discussions, moving from one subject to another with the central line being how to strengthen the way TOC helps people make significant improvements in their systems and individual lives.

I want to share here a part of discussion that Dr. Shoshi Reiter and I had after Eli’s memorial. We were looking into challenges of managing projects in cluster organizations and eventually moved to discuss whether there is difference between building culture in a new organization versus ‘mending’ culture, i.e. changing a part of culture that malfunctions for the one that works properly’. Is it so that when a new organization starts building culture the starting point it ‘Zero’, while ‘mending’ culture in an existing organization starts from ‘Minus’?

This question opens a subject of change in an organization and behaviour of people in response to change.

Read more

The difference between an Obstacle and an UDE

20 January 2017, Jelena Fedurko

In the Facebook discussion of my recent blog post If an Injection is a solution you knew BEFORE you built the Cloud, why did you need the Cloud? I wrote a phrase that clearly stated that there is a difference between an Obstacle and an UDE. The phrase read “… are obstacles for the implementation, rather than system UDEs.” Thereafter, I was asked what is the difference between an Obstacle and an UDE.

I think that the confusion between the two may be caused by the fact that from the point of view of the global meaning, an UDE is, of course, an obstacle to achieving the desired performance level of the system.

However, when we speak about the difference between an Obstacle and an UDE as TOC Thinking Processes elements, there are four aspects to it.

Read more

If an Injection is a solution you knew BEFORE you built the Cloud, why did you need the Cloud?

15 January 2017, Jelena Fedurko

I quite often see Clouds that were built after a person has read a TP book/teaching material. Looking at the solution presented in the Injection box I often ask the author, ‘Hadn’t you thought about this solution or discussed it BEFORE you built the Cloud and recorded this solution in the Injection box?’

If the Injection IS WHAT YOU KNEW WITHOUT THE CLOUD, what was the value of building the Cloud, surfacing assumptions and challenging them?

The cloud is the TOOL FOR FINDING A SOLUTION. And it is not a final tool, because the Injection that was derived with the help of the Cloud is nothing more than raw material for checking that the solution meets the important needs (B and C), and for trimming whichever negative consequences may arise as the result of implementing the derived solution.

If the diamond structure of the broken Cloud presents an Injection that the person had been contemplating before they recorded the situation in the Cloud, it is likely that the person substituted (often unintentionally) the Cloud’s purpose of finding a solution by a purpose of justifying the solution that they had known or contemplated before.

In such cases the Injection will sound as one of the conflicting actions with a slight addition or clarification. The assumption which served as the basis for this Injection will sound as a mere repetition of the arrow connecting the conflicting action to the need (which is a typical mistake in surfacing assumptions), or as an argument supporting this conflicting action that is recorded in the assumption box between D and D’ (also, a typical mistake).

The Cloud CAN be used as tool for justifying the solution/persuading, but AFTER IT HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE OF FINDING A SOLUTION.

To avoid misunderstanding regarding the objectives of the Cloud, here is the exchange between me and Ian Heptinstall in our Facebook group TOC Practitioners Worldwide on 16 January. Ian, many thanks!

Ian Heptinstall Jelena, are you suggesting that it is not worth using the cloud to check an idea one has for a possible solution, or are you suggesting that you need to take more care in writing it, and to properly surface and test all your assumptions?
 
Jelena Fedurko Hi Ian Heptinstall, thanks. No, i do not suggest that it is not worth using the cloud TO CHECK an idea. But then it is a different approach and the Cloud is RECONSTRUCTED – like in reverse engineering. Then you ask, “If THIS is a solution, then what is the problem?” In TOC a problem can be represented by a conflict/dilemma, an UDE, a perceived negative outcome, or an obstacle. If the problem is a conflict, dilemma, or UDE, one can use the Cloud. But as you are correctly saying – then the conscious objective is TO USE THE CLOUD TO CHECK AN IDEA. In the blog I was speaking about the situations when people are aware of the problem, decide to use the Cloud to sort it out, spend time on writing it, and then put the known solution as an Injection. As I wrote – in such cases as a rule you cannot find assumptions that would lead to this injection.
Regarding ‘testing assumptions’, yes all assumptions should be carefully tested before being accepted as raw material for developing injections. Thanks!

Comments

Jelena Fedurko, 15 January 2017